From: Eugene Leitl (Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de)
Date: Sun Nov 17 1996 - 11:43:38 MST
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Michael Lorrey wrote:
> Lyle Burkhead wrote:
> > > [...]
>
> WHile I would not terms this as "cheap" space flight, if their engines
> actually work on a launcher, it would be less expensive than current
> systems. People don't realize this, but it takes as much energy to get
> into low earth orbit as it does to fly to Australia from New York. Given
Since we have lots of experts on the list, a question: stratospheric
baloons fly pretty high, 30-40 km. Assuming a 1 ton baloon payload (which
sure defines a gigantic hydrogen baloon), which drags a solid (Al, ammonia
perchlorate, resin) booster, made from light compound with a very small
payload (50 kg?), let's say 20 km high up, then igniting the booster to
travel the rest of the way to LEO.
Does this make sense, weight-wise? What are pros, what are cons?
ciao,
'gene
> this, and allowing for the different performance regieme of a space
> vehicle, true "cheap" space transporation would be tickets to orbit at
> $2000-$5000 per person. Instead, we've got a government screwed up
> system that makes $1000 a pound seem like a bargain.
>
> Mike
>
_________________________________________________________________________________
| mailto: ui22204@sunmail.lrz-muenchen.de | transhumanism >H, cryonics, |
| mailto: Eugene.Leitl@uni-muenchen.de | nanotechnology, etc. etc. |
| mailto: c438@org.chemie.uni-muenchen.de | "deus ex machina, v.0.0.alpha" |
| icbmto: N 48 10'07'' E 011 33'53'' | http://www.lrz-muenchen.de/~ui22204 |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:50 MST